toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

Q. What is the cat population of a house populated by one cat? A. The cat population of a house populated by one cat is ________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct cat population number to answer my question.

One. Does this reflect the feline population in general? No, the variations where there have been a plural number of cats in my house (as has happened on occasion) or where there have been none in my house would have no bearing on any point you think you're happening to make.

You should drop this dross as you should the "LOL" stuff. It just makes you look more and more childish.

 

[7djengo7]

the house is populated by one cat.

Q. What is the cat population of a house populated by one cat? A. The cat population of a house populated by one cat is ________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct cat population number to answer my question.

One.

1 animal is not a population.

So, whereas Arthur Brain affirms that one cat is a population, chair denies that one cat is a population. Looks like there's gonna be a catfight between AB and c over the ABcs of "the theory of evolution"!

LOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, whereas Arthur Brain affirms that one cat is a population, chair denies that one cat is a population. Looks like there's gonna be a catfight between AB and c over the ABcs of "the theory of evolution"!

LOL

Um, no, I never affirmed that at all. It's beyond bemusing that you could even reach such a conclusion given the context provided.

Maybe you should just stick with the "LOL" shtick. It really is your level here.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, no, I never affirmed that at all.

LOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

Okay, if you want to post like a teenager who has a frat party to avoid then you carry on...

lain:

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution is change, not origin.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

Mutations happen to individuals. Natural selection happens to populations.

By saying, "mutations happen to individuals", you're somehow NOT meaning that changes "happen to individuals"??

By saying, "the theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants", what do you mean, if not "the theory of evolution has nothing to do with mutations in individual animals or plants"??

By saying, "evolution is change", do you mean evolution is mutation? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?

 

[Silent Hunter]

So you still don't understand the ASSUMPTIONS that are the BASIS of radiometric dating?

There are assumptions made in practically EVERY scientific hypothesis, heck, it's part of the scientific method; perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. For instance, one of the basic assumptions of Relativity is that c, the speed of light, is the same for all observers in all inertial refererence frames. Are we absolutely certain of this? No.

As I said in a prior reply:

1. There is only one assumption in radiometric dating, all others are derivitatives of the initial assumption; isotopes decay at a constant and known rate and are specific to the particular isotope.

2. They are called assumptions for a reason.

3. If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed then this is YOUR burden to prove, you know, falsify the hypothesis.

4. We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating.

5. If this is the best you have then we are justified in continuing to NOT take you seriously.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, no, I never affirmed that at all.

Here, you are blatantly lying, once again.

Q. What is the cat population of a house populated by one cat? A. The cat population of a house populated by one cat is ________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct cat population number to answer my question.

Astonishingly, you actually did not stonewall against filling in this blank, as you have stonewalled against filling in all the other blanks I've presented you, thus far. Here is how you filled in the blank:

One.

The cat population of a house populated by one cat is __One__.

It's right there in the record of this thread, for everyone to read, your affirmation that one cat is a population. Do you really imagine your blatant lying about it by saying, "I never affirmed that at all", is going to make go away the fact that you did affirm it? By saying "The cat population of a house populated by one cat is One", you affirmed that one cat is a population. By filling in the blank with "One", you were saying "The cat population of a house populated by one cat is One".

Whereas, in the case of all the other blanks I've presented to you, which you have never filled in, you have lied by saying you filled them in, in the case of this latest blank, you have actually filled it in, and now, you're lying by saying you did not fill it in. For you to have filled in the blank as you have done is for you to have affirmed that one cat is a population.

 

[7djengo7]

They're called assumptions for a reason.

For what reason should something be called an assumption? Should not something be called an assumption because it is taken for granted? That is, because there is no prior reason for thinking it--because it is not derived, by inference, from a prior proposition? I guess you don't think so, for you say:

show that there is reason to assume

What are you saying, here, if not, "show that there is a reason to think that for which there is no reason to think"? And, of course, the phrase, "reason to think that for which there is no reason to think", is an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless; which would make your phrase, "reason to assume", an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless.

If not that, then perhaps you've come up with some novel use of the words "assume", and "assumption", that nobody's gonna find out about from any common dictionary.

We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating.

If you think there is no evidence against something, then why would you request what you think does not exist? The phrase, "evidence against that against which there is no evidence", being an oxymoron, is meaningless. Yet, what you just said quite amounts to saying, "We're still waiting on your evidence against that against which there is no evidence", which is meaningless.

You wouldn't go into a restaurant and say, "I'd like to order something listed on the third page of your one-page menu, please", would you?

 

[chair]

So, of how many individuals is a population clearly made up? What's the minimum number?



By saying that an individual "does not evolve", what (if anything) exactly, are you trying to say that individual does not do? Are you saying that an individual does not change? Are you saying that an individual does not descend with modification? By your verb, "evolve", exactly what action (if any) are you saying an individual does not do?

Do two individuals evolve? Three? Since you say an individual does not evolve, then exactly how many individuals would you say evolve? What, say you, is the minimum number of individuals that evolve?



Here, you say that individuals survive, and that individuals reproduce.
Would you also say that a species survives?
Would you also say that a species reproduces?

Continue on with your word games. Let me know when you have anything of substance to contribute.

 

[chair]

By saying, "mutations happen to individuals", you're somehow NOT meaning that changes "happen to individuals"??

By saying, "the theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants", what do you mean, if not "the theory of evolution has nothing to do with mutations in individual animals or plants"??

By saying, "evolution is change", do you mean evolution is mutation? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?

More word games.

Look up the words "evolution" and "change" in Websters online dictionary. Post them here. Then we can give this conversation a try

 

[Silent Hunter]

For what reason should something be called an assumption? Should not something be called an assumption because it is taken for granted? That is, because there is no prior reason for thinking it--because it is not derived, by inference, from a prior proposition? I guess you don't think so, for you say:

What are you saying, here, if not, "show that there is a reason to think that for which there is no reason to think"? And, of course, the phrase, "reason to think that for which there is no reason to think", is an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless; which would make your phrase, "reason to assume", an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless.

If not that, then perhaps you've come up with some novel use of the words "assume", and "assumption", that nobody's gonna find out about from any common dictionary.

If you think there is no evidence against something, then why would you request what you think does not exist? The phrase, "evidence against that against which there is no evidence", being an oxymoron, is meaningless. Yet, what you just said quite amounts to saying, "We're still waiting on your evidence against that against which there is no evidence", which is meaningless.

You wouldn't go into a restaurant and say, "I'd like to order something listed on the third page of your one-page menu, please", would you?

:troll:

 

[Right Divider]

The facts of such scientific methodology are there for all to see via the links, all you brought to the table were invalid claims of being able to debunk such and emotive bias.

You ignore the FACT that radiometric dating is based on ASSUMPTIONS that CANNOT be VERIFIED. Good day.

 

[chair]

It could be, but then common descent working on the population level is mostly irrelevant. The interesting things are happening at the individual level (and their immediate offspring, which is vitally important to overcomes Haldane's dilemma).

So think of something better for the question marks. Something that is more relevant and at the population level. Then you will be able to scream at YEC when they don't respect your less-than-population boundary.

If by "common descent" you mean the idea that all living creatures are descended from one early ancestor, then I'd like to leave "common descent" alone for a moment. It is a logical consequence of evolution, and there is evidence supporting the idea, but it isn't what the Theory of Evolution is.

 

[Right Divider]

If by "common descent" you mean the idea that all living creatures are descended from one early ancestor, then I'd like to leave "common descent" alone for a moment. It is a logical consequence of evolution, and there is evidence supporting the idea, but it isn't what the Theory of Evolution is.

It depends on who's "theory of evolution" you're talking about.

The atheist materialist view requires common descent from a single common ancestor as well as life arising from non-life "on its own".

 

[7djengo7]

:troll:

Sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by asking you questions you're incompetent to answer.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here, you are blatantly lying, once again.



Astonishingly, you actually did not stonewall against filling in this blank, as you have stonewalled against filling in all the other blanks I've presented you, thus far. Here is how you filled in the blank:

The cat population of a house populated by one cat is __One__.

It's right there in the record of this thread, for everyone to read, your affirmation that one cat is a population. Do you really imagine your blatant lying about it by saying, "I never affirmed that at all", is going to make go away the fact that you did affirm it? By saying "The cat population of a house populated by one cat is One", you affirmed that one cat is a population. By filling in the blank with "One", you were saying "The cat population of a house populated by one cat is One".

Whereas, in the case of all the other blanks I've presented to you, which you have never filled in, you have lied by saying you filled them in, in the case of this latest blank, you have actually filled it in, and now, you're lying by saying you did not fill it in. For you to have filled in the blank as you have done is for you to have affirmed that one cat is a population.

So, Captain word salad is still at it...

One cat is one life form, it isn't representative of an entire feline population. When the singular cat is in my house then the house is populated by one cat. When the cat and everyone else is out of the house then it's populated by neither humans or cats. On the times where there's more than one cat in the house then it is populated by multiple cats.

Now, unless you want to redefine the scientific definition of a population to a specific geographic area as meaning someone's house then once again you've dropped the ball big style, just as you did with the opening post.

Keep on going like this and you'll have enough egg on your face to make an omlette the size of Gibraltar.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You ignore the FACT that radiometric dating is based on ASSUMPTIONS that CANNOT be VERIFIED. Good day.

Once again, the links are still there and you've debunked nothing at all.

Good day to you in turn sir!

:e4e:

 

[Right Divider]

Once again, the links are still there and you've debunked nothing at all.

Good day to you in turn sir!

:e4e:

A method based on multiple ASSUMPTIONS that are all UNVERIFIABLE is not a scientific method.

Radiometric dating is a BELIEF system, much like "evolution".

:surf:

 

[7djengo7]

So, Captain word salad is still at it...

One cat is one life form, it isn't representative of an entire feline population. When the singular cat is in my house then the house is populated by one cat. When the cat and everyone else is out of the house then it's populated by neither humans or cats. On the times where there's more than one cat in the house then it is populated by multiple cats.

Now, unless you want to redefine the scientific definition of a population to a specific geographic area as meaning someone's house then once again you've dropped the ball big style, just as you did with the opening post.

Keep on going like this and you'll have enough egg on your face to make an omlette the size of Gibraltar.

LOL

You affirmed that one cat is a cat population by answering "One" to the question I asked you. Can't hide that fact, Professor.

Oh, and by the way--that's the first truth you've affirmed on this thread. Way to go!